TV delivered to wrong address, e-commerce website to pay Rs 70,000 to CBI officer

A civil servant has won a payout of Rs 70,000 from an e-commerce website as the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II held the platform guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for not delivering the television ordered by the man to his address.

President G Venkateswari, Member P Vijaya Durga, and Member Karaka Ramana Babu were hearing a plea filed by a man who was seeking compensation for a television that he had ordered online, which was delivered to the wrong address.

“As stated by the complainant in his pleadings and evidence, he is a civil servant, and that, without delivering the television purchased by him through the opposite parties (the e-commerce platform), the opposite parties cannot still show the delivery status on the website as delivered, more particularly when the complainant has purchased a television in view of failure on the part of the opposite parties, there is every possibility for him to submit his explanation to the government authorities/ higher authorities, if necessary, and that may lead to inconvenience to him,” the October 17 order read.

The man claimed to be a civil servant working as Assistant Director, Central Bureau of Communication, Vijayawada, and alleged that on June 30, 2024, he had purchased a 65-inch television through an e-commerce website for Rs 14,999.

The man contended that despite the payment, the television was not delivered to him within the given time, but the website showed the status of the order as delivered. The man stated that on enquiry, he came to know that the product had been delivered to Naidupeta, Nellore District, instead of his actual delivery address at Purushottampuram, Visakhapatnam.

According to the order, the man had also sent an email to the grievance department of the website, requesting delivery of the television at the agreed offer price. However, the e-commerce website, through an email, apologised for the non-delivery and refunded the amount without resolving his delivery request. Subsequently, the man was forced to purchase the same model of television from the market for Rs 49,990.

The man further stated that, despite repeated requests, the e-commerce website did not correct the incorrect delivery status in his account, causing inconvenience regarding his official accountability as a public servant.

Story continues below this ad

The e-commerce platform submitted in its defence that they were only operating and managing the e-commerce marketplace and the product was sold by an independent third-party seller. The website argued that it only provided an online marketplace that helped in transactions between buyers and independent third-party sellers and was neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product.

The website also stated that, as the product was not delivered to the man, the entire amount of Rs 14,999 was refunded by them on July 11, 2024, through the original payment method.

‘Duty is cast’

The district commission stated that an online status indicating delivery was not, by itself, conclusive proof of actual delivery to the man and in the absence of reliable proof establishing delivery to him, the online status alone cannot be treated as sufficient proof of delivery.

Regarding the refund, the commission was of the view that the refund did not establish that the product had been delivered or that the man’s grievance regarding non-delivery and the incorrect delivery status had been resolved.

Story continues below this ad

The district commission said that “a duty is cast upon the vendor to supply/deliver the product at the delivery address, as each and every product purchased through the opposite party website shall be delivered at the place of delivery mentioned at the time of purchase of the product itself.”

The bench observed that customers preferred to shop through online modes such as e-commerce websites due to the selling of the product at a heavily discounted price and also delivering at the place specified by the customer, because of which, “when an offer is accepted by a customer, it becomes a binding contract on the opposite parties (e-commerce website) who have to deliver the product at any cost.”

Holding the website guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the commission ordered it to correct/delete the online status mentioned as “delivered” in the account of the man and pay him Rs 60,000 as compensation for financial loss and mental agony caused to him. The website was also directed to pay Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.

Takeaway

The ruling establishes the obligation of e-commerce websites to ensure that products are delivered to the correct addresses and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience.

Story continues below this ad

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh: 1800-11-4000) and union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

AIIMS Rishikesh ordered to pay Rs 60,000 after ‘wrongly declaring’ man as HIV positive

Woman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakh

Nearly 6 lakh cases pending in consumer commissions, over 860 posts vacant: Centre